Dissenting Decisions

Rochelle Winchel

National American University

CJ3100 Criminal Investigation

LP3 Assignment: Dissenting Decisions

7/08/2014

Dissenting Decisions

Weeks v. The United States 1914

The case of Weeks v. United States was the stage for the birth of the Exclusionary Rule. While it may be important to uphold the Fourth Amendment of the constitution in protecting the rights of citizens against illegal search and seizure, this rule has made it possible for countless criminals to go free and continue to plague our society. Upon entering Weeks home and executing a warrantless search, the police found evidence which was later used to convict Weeks of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. The question in this case was whether or not the search and seizure of Weeks home was in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court held that the search and seizure of Weeks home was in fact unconstitutional. My dissenting opinion in this case would be that rather than implementing a rule to disallow any evidence obtained by way of illegal search and seizure, a civil rights statute should be implemented which would not protect the criminal from prosecution, but protect his or her civil rights by compensating him or her for the unconstitutional violations against them. This would insure justice for person whose rights have been violated, while insuring that criminals are still held responsible to pay for their crimes against society.

Mapp v. Ohio 1961

The case of Mapp v. Ohio had the misfortune of following on the heels of Wolf v. Colorado. In search of a bombing suspect and evidence of the bombing, police attempted to gain entry to Miss Mapp’s home. After being refused entry police returned some time later with a search warrant. While executing the warrant police found obscene material which were considered illegal under Ohio’s state laws and Mapp was convicted for these materials. Mapp’s conviction was overturned...